On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 7:24 PM, Richard Fairhurst <[email protected]>wrote:
> I don't think you have at all answered the points in that, and therefore > I stand by the viewpoint that in Australia, ODbL has the best chance of > any open, non-clickwrap licence of protecting OSM's data. > Which is to say, none at all? You compare the ODbL to licenses offered by Tele Atlas, and Navteq, and Google, but there's a key difference with these licenses. They don't allow redistribution, or only allow limited redistribution. The main way they protect against people taking their databases is by not letting anyone download their complete raw database (or letting only a select few highly trustworthy organizations have access to the complete raw database). What's to stop someone from setting up a mirror of the OSM database and not putting a TOS on their website? I believe the answer is that not only is there nothing to stop them, but people are encouraged to do so. Now, when I download the OSM database from that mirror site, what binds me to the ODbL? Absolutely nothing.
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
